A Case Study Based Comparison of ATL and SDM

  • Sven Patzina
  • Lars Patzina
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7233)


In model driven engineering (MDE) model-to-model transformations play an important role. Nowadays, many model transformation languages for different purposes and with different formal foundations have emerged. In this paper, we present a case study that compares the Atlas Transformation Language (ATL) with Story Driven Modeling (SDM) by focusing on a complex transformation in the security domain. Additionally, we highlight the differences and shortcomings revealed by this case study and propose concepts that are missing in both languages.


Atlas Transformation Language Story Driven Modeling Live Sequence Charts Monitor Petri nets transformation 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Amelunxen, C., Königs, A., Rötschke, T., Schürr, A.: MOFLON: A Standard-Compliant Metamodeling Framework with Graph Transformations. In: Rensink, A., Warmer, J. (eds.) ECMDA-FA 2006. LNCS, vol. 4066, pp. 361–375. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    van Amstel, M., Bosems, S., Kurtev, I., Ferreira Pires, L.: Performance in Model Transformations: Experiments with ATL and QVT. In: Cabot, J., Visser, E. (eds.) ICMT 2011. LNCS, vol. 6707, pp. 198–212. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baudry, B., Dinh-Trong, T., Mottu, J.M., Simmonds, D., France, R., Ghosh, S., Fleurey, F., Le Traon, Y.: Model transformation testing challenges. In: ECMDA Workshop on Integration of MDD and MDT. IRB Verlag (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Czarnecki, K., Helsen, S.: Feature-based survey of model transformation approaches. IBM Systems Journal 45, 621–645 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Di Ruscio, D., Jouault, F., Kurtev, I., Bézivin, J., Pierantonio, A.: Extending AMMA for supporting dynamic semantics specifications of DSLs. Tech. rep. LINA (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fischer, T., Niere, J., Torunski, L., Zündorf, A.: Story Diagrams: A New Graph Rewrite Language Based on the Unified Modeling Language and Java. In: Ehrig, H., Engels, G., Kreowski, H.-J., Rozenberg, G. (eds.) TAGT 1998. LNCS, vol. 1764, pp. 296–309. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hildebrandt, S., Wätzoldt, S., Giese, H.: Executing graph transformations with the MDELab story diagram interpreter. In: Transformation Tool Contest (2011)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jouault, F., Kurtev, I.: Transforming Models with ATL. In: Bruel, J.-M. (ed.) MoDELS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3844, pp. 128–138. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jouault, F., Allilaire, F., Bézivin, J., Kurtev, I.: ATL: A model transformation tool. Science of Computer Programming 72(1-2), 31–39 (2008)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Klar, F., Rose, S., Schürr, A.: TiE – a tool integration environment. In: Proc. of the 5th ECMDA-TW. CTIT Workshop Proc., vol. WP09-09, pp. 39–48 (2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kolovos, D.S., Paige, R.F., Polack, F.A.C.: The Epsilon Transformation Language. In: Vallecillo, A., Gray, J., Pierantonio, A. (eds.) ICMT 2008. LNCS, vol. 5063, pp. 46–60. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mens, T., Taentzer, G., Runge, O.: Detecting structural refactoring conflicts using critical pair analysis. In: Proc. of the Workshop on Software Evolution through Transformations. ENTCS, vol. 127, pp. 113–128. Elsevier (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Meyers, B., Van Gorp, P.: Towards a hybrid transformation language: Implicit and explicit rule scheduling in story diagrams. In: Proc. of the 6th Int. Fujaba Days (2008)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    OMG: MOF 2.0 QVT Spec. Object Management Group (January 2011),
  15. 15.
    Patzina, S., Patzina, L., Schürr, A.: Extending LSCs for Behavioral Signature Modeling. In: Camenisch, J., Fischer-Hübner, S., Murayama, Y., Portmann, A., Rieder, C. (eds.) SEC 2011. IFIP AICT, vol. 354, pp. 293–304. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schürr, A.: Programmed Graph Replacement Systems. In: Handbook of Graph Grammars and Computing by Graph Transformation, vol. 1: Foundations, pp. 479–546. World Scientific (1997)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Taentzer, G., Ehrig, K., Guerra, E., de Lara, J., Lengyel, L., Levendovszky, T., Prange, U., Varró, D.: Varró-Gyapay, Sz.: Model transformation by graph transformation: A comparative study. In: Proc. of Workshop MTiP (2005)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Troya, J., Vallecillo, A.: Towards a Rewriting Logic Semantics for ATL. In: Tratt, L., Gogolla, M. (eds.) ICMT 2010. LNCS, vol. 6142, pp. 230–244. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Van Gorp, P., Schippers, H., Janssens, D.: Copying subgraphs within model repositories. In: Proc. of the 5th Int. Workshop on Graph Transformation and Visual Modeling Techniques. ENTCS, vol. 211, pp. 133–145. Elsevier (2008)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Varró, D., Balogh, A.: The model transformation language of the VIATRA2 framework. Science of Computer Programming 68(3), 214–234 (2007)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wimmer, M., Kappel, G., Kusel, A., Retschitzegger, W., Schönböck, J., Schwinger, W., Kolovos, D., Paige, R., Lauder, M., Schürr, A., Wagelaar, D.: A Comparison of Rule Inheritance in Model-to-Model Transformation Languages. In: Cabot, J., Visser, E. (eds.) ICMT 2011. LNCS, vol. 6707, pp. 31–46. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sven Patzina
    • 1
  • Lars Patzina
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for Advanced Security Research Darmstadt (CASED)Germany

Personalised recommendations